This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On appeal, the appellate court, by Decision[14] of March 28, 2006, reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, it finding that OCT No. 5028 was procured by fraud and petitioner was not an innocent purchaser for value. Thus the appellate court expounded: The records clearly show that the first title-holder Ciriaco Quiñones inherited the property from his mother, Eustaquia Quiñones. Eustaquia, together with her sister, Martina, inherited it from their father Pablo Martinez who was the original owner thereof. When Pablo Martinez died, Eustaquia and Martina partitioned the property equally, with the northern half as Martina's share and the southern half as Eustaquia's share. Pursuant to said partition, Martina declared her property for tax purposes in 1946 and regularly paid the land taxes thereof. Surprisingly, Ciriaco, Eustaquia's son, had the entire property, including Martina's share, titled in his name. There is no way for Ciriaco to be deemed innocent about the equal sharing of the property between his mother and his aunt. Neither can he claim ignorance of his aunt's family's presence and actual possession under claim of ownership of the one-half northern portion. In addition, that claim is documented by Martina's tax declaration. The inclusion of his aunt's share when he caused the survey of the property was not accidental or innocent. Instead, it was deliberate and willful. Knowing that his mother's share of the property is only one half of it, then when he included his aunt's share of the property when he applied for his free patent title, the same was fraudulently done. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case and will not be interfered with, except in cases of manifest abuse.[47] Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[48] | |||||